830 FEDEEAL REPORTER. �ated cases. It îa only in the acts of congress passed subse- quently that the restrictions are found. So long as it kept within constitutionai bounds congress might place limitations on the jurisdietion of the circuit courts, and in like manner it had power to take them away. This it bas done in the act of 1875, § 2, which, so far as it bears on the present case, is in the language of the constitution, and gives the circuit courts jurisdietion, and the right of removal thereto, in suits wherein there is "a controversy between citi- sens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects." �There is nothing said about the suit being brought in the state -where the "citizens of a state" in a given case reside. Nor is there any warrant for any qualification of that sort, AU that is necessary under this clause is that one party shall be a citizen or a subject of a foreign state and the other a citizen of "a state." �The distinction here taken between a "foreign state" and "a state" is, it seems to me, an answer to the position of defendant stated above, viz. : That the word "foreign" must be referred to the residence of the citizen of the United States, and not to the district in which the suit may be brought. In order to main tain his position the defendant is obliged to bring into this statute a provision not put there by congress, but studiously left out. �The plaintiff properly sued the defendant in a court of this state, and afterwards it, being a citizen of "a state," (Cali- fornia,) and the defendant being a foreign citizen or subject, (of Great Britain,) transferred the suit to this court, that being the very case made by the statute in which a removal is authorized. It is said no case in point can be found — that is, a case between a citizen of a state, a member of the Union, and a citizen of a foreign state. But there is a uni- versal concurrence of opinion that since the act of 1875 it is no longer necessary, in suits between citizens of different states, that either shall be a resident of the state in which the suit is brought. Dillon on Eemovals, 26; Cooke y. Ford, 16 Am. Law Eeg. 417; Peterson v. Chapman, 13 Bl. 395. �But it is impossible to distinguish the present case from ����
